Back to Ohio

HCR43 • 2026

Urge Supreme Court uphold rule prohibiting judicial endorsements

Urge Supreme Court uphold rule prohibiting judicial endorsements

Passed Legislature

This bill passed both chambers and reached final enrollment, even if later executive action is not shown here.

Sponsor
Eric Synenberg
Last action
Official status
As Introduced
Effective date
Not listed

Plain English Breakdown

Using official source text because the generated explanation was unavailable or could not be confirmed against the official bill text.

Urge Supreme Court uphold rule prohibiting judicial endorsements

To urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to find the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule that prohibits judges from endorsing a candidate for office constitutional.

What This Bill Does

  • To urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to find the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule that prohibits judges from endorsing a candidate for office constitutional.

Limits and Unknowns

  • This entry is temporarily using official source text because the generated explanation could not be confirmed against the official bill text during the last sync.

Bill History

  1. Ohio Legislature

    As Introduced

Official Summary Text

To urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to find the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule that prohibits judges from endorsing a candidate for office constitutional.

Current Bill Text

Read the full stored bill text
hcr43_00_IN

As Introduced

136th
General Assembly

Regular
Session
H. C. R. No. 43

2025-2026

Representative
Synenberg

A
c o n c u r r e n t R E S O L U T I O N

To
urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to find the Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct Rule that prohibits judges from endorsing a candidate for
office constitutional.

BE
IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF OHIO (THE
SENATE CONCURRING):

WHEREAS,
Article IV, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution grants the Supreme
Court of Ohio original jurisdiction over admission to the practice of
law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters
relating to the practice of law; and

WHEREAS,
Article IV, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution grants the Supreme
Court of Ohio general superintendence over all courts in Ohio,
exercised by the Chief Justice in accordance with rules promulgated
by the Supreme Court of Ohio; and

WHEREAS,
Article IV, Section 5 of the Ohio Constitution grants the Supreme
Court of Ohio the power to prescribe rules governing practice and
procedure in all courts of Ohio; and

WHEREAS,
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct is intended to establish standards
for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates; and

WHEREAS,
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2 requires a judge to act at
all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and to
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; and

WHEREAS,
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.3 prohibits a judge from
abusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or
economic interests of the judge or others; and

WHEREAS,
The Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 4.1(A)(3), the Code of Conduct
for United States Judges Canon 5, and most states prohibit a judge
from publicly endorsing or opposing a candidate for public office;
and

WHEREAS,
In June 2024, the disciplinary counsel found that John William
Rudduck violated Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 1.3, and
4.1(A)(3); and

WHEREAS,
The Supreme Court of Ohio, without giving notice to the parties,
without being asked by the parties, and without being fully briefed
by the parties, held in
Disciplinary
Counsel v. Rudduck
, that Ohio Judicial
Conduct Rule 4.1(A)(3) that prohibits judges from publicly endorsing
or opposing a candidate for public office violates the First
Amendment's right to free speech. The Court found that the rule was
not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in preventing the
appearance of judicial bias or to preserve the independence of the
judiciary; was not the least restrictive alternative available; and
was not narrowly tailored to advance the state's interest in
maintaining judicial integrity and in preventing judicial corruption;
and

WHEREAS,
The Supreme Court of Ohio should have exercised judicial restraint
and not decided a constitutional question unless it was absolutely
necessary to do so; and

WHEREAS,
Since the Supreme Court of Ohio did decide the constitutional
question, the court should have agreed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that held that a state has a
compelling interest in keeping its judges above the partisan fray of
trading political favors. That court found that the rule withstood
strict scrutiny because a ban on such endorsements guards against the
risk that, once a judge is elected, the judge will not be able to
referee disputes involving elected officials the judge did or did not
endorse; and

WHEREAS,
Allowing judges to endorse or oppose a candidate for public office
creates partisanship within the judiciary, contravenes Ohio Judicial
Conduct Rules 1.2 and 1.3, and actively erodes public confidence and
trust in Ohio courts; and

RESOLVED,
That we the members of the 136th General Assembly of the State of
Ohio, urge the Supreme Court of Ohio to find Ohio Code of Judicial
Conduct Rule 4.1(A)(3) prohibiting judges from endorsing a candidate
for office constitutional; and be it further

RESOLVED,
That the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall transmit duly
authenticated copies of this resolution
to the
Governor, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and the
other Justices of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the news media of
Ohio.